4.6 Article

Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment presentation and surgery in uveitic eyes

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 107, 期 1, 页码 116-120

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2021-319268

关键词

retina; ciliary body; iris; choroid

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to investigate the occurrence, activity, features, rate of proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR), and outcomes following rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) in a large tertiary referral uveitis service. The findings revealed a high rate of RRD in uveitis eyes, accompanied by high rates of PVR and redetachment. Anatomical success was high, but visual outcomes remained unpredictable.
Background/aims To explore the occurrence, uveitis activity, features, rate of proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR) and outcomes following rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) in a large tertiary referral uveitis service. Methods Retrospective analysis of subjects attending between 2008 and 2019. Multivariate analysis of risk factors for RRD was calculated. Nelson-Aalen plots were used to demonstrate cumulative risk of RRD. Outcomes of RRD surgery and prognostic indicators were analysed. Results Two thousand four hundred and forty-seven (2447) subjects (3516 eyes) with uveitis included. The mean follow-up was 5.7 years (19 767 eye-years); 56 eyes developed a RRD (1.6%). Thirty-two eyes had surgery in our unit. Risk factors for RRD were posterior uveitis or panuveitis (HR 3.386, p<0.001), male gender (HR 2.045, p=0.029) and infectious aetiology (HR 1.942, p=0.044). PVR was present in six (18.8%) eyes at presentation, and a further four (12.5%) developed it after the primary surgery. Final follow-up data showed 16 (50%) moderate or severe visual loss, although 29 (90.6%) had anatomical reattachment without oil in situ. Conclusions There is a high rate of RRD in uveitis eyes. This is accompanied by high rates of PVR and redetachment. Anatomical success was high, but visual outcomes remain unpredictable.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据